cms-srdp-evaluation-memo.docx

1010-00003 · Arbor Health Technologies Inc · Voluntary Disclosure Evaluation

cms-srdp-evaluation-memo.docx DOCUMENT Funds

34 / 35 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

TO: Patricia Yamamoto, General Counsel, Arbor Health Technologies Inc. Derek Huang, Chief Compliance Officer, Arbor Health Technologies Inc.

FROM: Miriam Calloway, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Christopher Aiken, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Amy Whitfield, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: June 20, 2023

RE: Evaluation of CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP) — Analysis of Potential Stark Law Violations and Voluntary Disclosure Considerations

C&H Matter No.: 1010-00003

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate whether any Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn) violations identified during the comprehensive self-assessment engagement undertaken by Arbor Health Technologies Inc. ("AHT") warrant voluntary self-disclosure to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") under the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol ("SRDP"). This memorandum sets forth the factual circumstances underlying the identified arrangements of concern, analyzes the applicable Stark Law provisions and exceptions, quantifies estimated overpayment exposure, and provides our recommendation regarding the advisability of filing an SRDP disclosure at this time.

Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") was retained by AHT on January 30, 2023, pursuant to AHT Board Resolution No. 2023-01-004 (adopted January 24, 2023), to conduct a comprehensive self-assessment of physician compensation arrangements, referral relationships, and vendor contracts under the Stark Law and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS"). The scope of the engagement encompasses all physician compensation arrangements maintained by AHT, including both W-2 employment agreements and independent contractor/medical director arrangements, as well as all material vendor and ancillary service relationships that involve referrals for designated health services ("DHS").

The self-assessment was triggered by two events occurring in close succession. First, AHT completed the integration of Lakeview Medical Associates, P.C. ("Lakeview"), acquired via asset purchase on August 15, 2022, for an aggregate purchase price of $11.4 million. The Lakeview acquisition added 14 physician agreements, 3 medical director stipend arrangements, and 2 office leases to AHT's portfolio, many of which had not been subject to Stark-specific compliance review or independent fair market value ("FMV") assessment. Second, the gap assessment report prepared by Grayson Whitaker & Associates LLP (Report No. GW-AHT-2022-Final, dated December 12, 2022) identified 17 high-risk and 23 moderate-risk arrangements within AHT's existing and newly acquired contractual portfolio. The Grayson Whitaker report recommended that AHT engage external regulatory counsel to conduct a deeper legal analysis of the flagged arrangements, and the Board acted promptly in response.

AHT currently operates 23 outpatient clinics across four states: Massachusetts (14 locations), Connecticut (4 locations), Rhode Island (3 locations), and New Hampshire (2 locations). AHT employs 147 physicians on a W-2 basis and maintains 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements. For fiscal year 2022, AHT reported net revenue of approximately $214.3 million, of which approximately $130.7 million (61%) derived from Medicare and Medicaid programs and approximately $83.6 million (39%) derived from commercial payer contracts. AHT's National Provider Identifier ("NPI") is 1497253810; its lead Provider Transaction Access Number ("PTAN") is 27MA4891; and its Employer Identification Number ("EIN") is 84-3291057. These identifiers are relevant to any future CMS filings or refund submissions.

Based on our analysis, three categories of arrangements present the highest risk of technical Stark Law violations:

(1) The Meridian Diagnostics LLC facility access fee arrangement, in which Meridian pays AHT a per-scan facility access fee of $185 for mobile MRI services provided at AHT's Connecticut clinics, creating a compensation arrangement that varies directly with the volume and value of DHS referrals;

(2) The Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. preferred laboratory relationship, which involves two distinct Stark concerns: (a) the provision by Pinnacle to AHT of a no-cost electronic laboratory interface valued at approximately $120,000 per year, plus CME sponsorship valued at approximately $86,000 per year, both of which constitute non-monetary remuneration far exceeding the applicable Stark threshold; and (b) the 4.2% passive equity interest held by Dr. Karen Ellsworth (spouse of AHT CEO Dr. Nathan Ellsworth) in Pinnacle, creating a prohibited ownership interest in an entity furnishing DHS; and

(3) Above-FMV medical director compensation arrangements, in which AHT's 38 independent contractor/medical director agreements reflect an effective average hourly rate of approximately $501.28, which exceeds the 90th percentile of applicable physician specialty benchmarks based on MGMA and SullivanCotter data, raising a strong inference that some or all of these arrangements fail to satisfy the FMV requirement of the personal services arrangement and fair market value exceptions.

Overall Recommendation. At this time, voluntary SRDP filing is not recommended, provided AHT undertakes timely remediation within the 90-day implementation timeline outlined in the final remediation roadmap to be presented to the Board Compliance Committee on June 27, 2023. This recommendation is contingent upon AHT's prompt restructuring of the Meridian and Pinnacle arrangements, completion of the Northbridge Valuation Advisors FMV opinions, and return of any identified overpayments within the 60-day statutory window mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d). AHT must closely monitor the 60-day repayment obligation for any identified overpayments, as failure to timely report and return an overpayment would convert a Stark compliance issue into potential False Claims Act liability — a materially different and more serious category of legal risk. We discuss each of these matters in detail below.

II. Background on the CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The physician self-referral law, commonly known as the Stark Law, is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. The Stark Law prohibits a physician from making referrals for designated health services payable by Medicare or Medicaid to an entity with which the physician (or an immediate family member of the physician) has a financial relationship, unless a specific statutory or regulatory exception applies. The term "financial relationship" encompasses both ownership or investment interests and compensation arrangements, whether direct or indirect. The categories of DHS are enumerated in the statute and include, among others, clinical laboratory services; physical therapy, occupational therapy, and outpatient speech-language pathology services; radiology and certain other imaging services; radiation therapy services and supplies; durable medical equipment and supplies; parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies; prosthetics, orthotics, and prosthetic devices and supplies; home health services; outpatient prescription drugs; and inpatient and outpatient hospital services.

A critical feature of the Stark Law — and one that distinguishes it from the Anti-Kickback Statute — is that it is a strict liability statute. No element of intent is required to establish a violation. A purely technical or inadvertent failure to satisfy all elements of an applicable exception renders the referral prohibited and all claims submitted for DHS furnished pursuant to that referral subject to denial and refund, regardless of whether the parties intended to comply, believed in good faith that they were in compliance, or derived any improper benefit from the arrangement. This strict liability framework means that even arrangements entered into for entirely legitimate business purposes and at fair market value can give rise to Stark violations if they fail to satisfy each and every element of the applicable exception.

The consequences of a Stark Law violation are significant. They include: denial of payment for DHS claims submitted in violation of the prohibition; an obligation to refund amounts collected from Medicare and Medicaid for improperly billed DHS; potential liability under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733), which provides for treble damages and per-claim penalties; Civil Monetary Penalties of up to $15,000 per service furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral and up to $100,000 per arrangement entered into with knowledge that the arrangement constitutes a circumvention scheme; and potential exclusion from federal health care programs under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7.

Separately, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d), enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), imposes a 60-day repayment obligation on any person who has received an overpayment from a federal health care program. The statute requires that such person report and return the overpayment within 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified, or the date any corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. Failure to timely return an identified overpayment constitutes an "obligation" under the reverse false claims provision of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)), thereby converting a regulatory compliance failure into potential treble-damages liability. This provision is discussed in greater detail in Section V of this memorandum.

The SRDP was established by CMS pursuant to Section 6409 of the Affordable Care Act (codified as a note to 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn). Section 6409 directed CMS to establish a self-referral disclosure protocol that allows providers to voluntarily disclose actual or potential violations of the Stark Law. CMS published the initial SRDP in September 2010, with an updated protocol issued in March 2016 reflecting revisions to the submission requirements and evaluation methodology. The SRDP is administered by CMS's Center for Program Integrity.

B. SRDP Process Overview

The SRDP is a voluntary disclosure mechanism through which a health care provider may report to CMS an actual or potential violation of the Stark Law's physician self-referral prohibition. The protocol is intended to provide an alternative to full overpayment refunds and to encourage self-policing and voluntary compliance within the health care industry.

Under the SRDP, the disclosing party submits a detailed written disclosure to CMS that includes, at a minimum: (a) a complete description of the nature of the actual or potential violation; (b) the circumstances under which the financial relationship at issue arose and was maintained; (c) the period during which the non-compliant arrangement was in effect; (d) the DHS categories implicated by the arrangement; (e) identification of the applicable Stark exception(s) the party relied upon or believes may apply, together with a detailed explanation of why the exception requirements were not (or may not have been) satisfied; (f) a financial analysis quantifying the total amount of DHS claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid pursuant to referrals made during the non-compliant period; and (g) the total dollar amount of remuneration at issue in the financial relationship.

Upon receipt of a complete SRDP disclosure, CMS evaluates the submission and may engage in negotiations with the disclosing party regarding an appropriate settlement amount. Historically, SRDP settlements have ranged from approximately 1.5 times to 3 times the value of the financial relationship that formed the basis for the violation, rather than requiring refund of the full amount of DHS claims submitted during the non-compliant period. This represents a significant potential reduction in financial exposure compared to the theoretical maximum overpayment liability, which under a strict reading of the Stark Law would encompass all DHS furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. The settlement multiplier reflects CMS's consideration of various factors, including the nature and severity of the violation, the degree of cooperation by the disclosing party, the existence of self-remediation measures, and other relevant circumstances.

It is important to note that the SRDP is separate from and should not be confused with the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol ("OIG SDP"), which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and addresses violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)), Civil Monetary Penalties law, and other OIG-enforced statutes. The AKS-specific analysis of the arrangements discussed in this memorandum is addressed in a companion OIG SDP evaluation memorandum being prepared concurrently by this engagement team.

The typical resolution timeline for an SRDP filing is 12 to 24 months or longer from the date of submission to the execution of a settlement agreement with CMS. In practice, many SRDP matters have taken significantly longer, particularly where the submission involves complex financial relationships, multiple DHS categories, or large aggregate claims amounts. During the pendency of the SRDP review, the disclosing party is expected to cooperate fully with CMS, respond to requests for additional information, and refrain from engaging in any new conduct that would constitute a Stark violation.

The benefits of filing an SRDP disclosure include: reduced financial exposure relative to the full theoretical overpayment amount; reduced financial exposure relative to the potential damages in a False Claims Act qui tam action (which provides for treble damages plus per-claim penalties); demonstration of good faith compliance efforts, which may be viewed favorably by CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice; and potential mitigation of exclusion risk. The risks include: the disclosure creates a formal record with CMS acknowledging an actual or potential violation, which could be referenced in subsequent enforcement proceedings or litigation; there is no guarantee as to the outcome or settlement amount; and CMS retains the discretion to refer matters to the OIG for AKS investigation or to the Department of Justice for False Claims Act enforcement if the disclosed facts suggest conduct beyond a purely technical Stark violation.

C. Interaction with the 60-Day Repayment Obligation

The interaction between the SRDP and the 60-day repayment obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d) is a critical consideration in AHT's decision-making process and warrants careful analysis.

As noted above, upon identification of an overpayment from a federal health care program, AHT has 60 days to report and return the overpayment to CMS or the relevant Medicare Administrative Contractor. Failure to do so exposes AHT to liability under the reverse false claims provision of the False Claims Act. For AHT, the self-assessment process itself — including the Grayson Whitaker gap assessment and this C&H analysis — may constitute the exercise of "reasonable diligence" that triggers "identification" of an overpayment for purposes of starting the 60-day clock. We address this issue in detail in Section V below.

Critically, however, CMS has clarified that the submission of a complete SRDP disclosure tolls the 60-day repayment obligation while the disclosure is pending with CMS, provided the disclosing party continues to cooperate with CMS throughout the review process. This tolling mechanism provides an important practical benefit: it allows the disclosing party to avoid the immediate financial burden of a full overpayment refund while CMS evaluates the appropriate settlement amount. In the absence of an SRDP filing, the disclosing party would be required to calculate and return the full overpayment amount within 60 days, without the benefit of negotiating a reduced settlement.

The critical threshold question for AHT is whether, and at what precise point, AHT has "identified" any Stark-related overpayments. If identification has occurred or is imminent, AHT must either (a) file an SRDP disclosure to toll the 60-day clock, (b) calculate and return the full overpayment amount within 60 days, or (c) demonstrate that reasonable diligence is still ongoing and identification has not yet occurred. The timing of any overpayment conclusions must be carefully calibrated with remediation actions to ensure that AHT does not inadvertently trigger and then miss the 60-day deadline.

III. Identification and Analysis of Potential Stark Law Violations

This section sets forth C&H's detailed analysis of the specific arrangements identified as presenting the highest risk of Stark Law violations. For each arrangement, we describe the factual background, identify the applicable DHS category and financial relationship, analyze the relevant Stark Law exceptions, estimate the potential overpayment exposure, and assign a risk level. Our analysis is based on review of the underlying contractual documents, financial records, organizational charts, referral data provided by AHT, the Grayson Whitaker gap assessment report, and discussions with AHT's compliance and finance teams.

A. Meridian Diagnostics LLC — Facility Access Fee Arrangement

1. Arrangement Summary

AHT and Meridian Diagnostics LLC ("Meridian") are parties to a Services Agreement dated March 1, 2021 (the "Meridian Agreement"). Meridian's principal address is 88 Trumbull Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, and its EIN is 82-4019673.

Under the Meridian Agreement, Meridian provides mobile MRI and advanced diagnostic imaging services at four AHT clinic locations in Connecticut. Meridian supplies the mobile MRI unit, employs or contracts with the operating technicians, and is responsible for equipment maintenance and compliance with applicable licensing and accreditation requirements. AHT provides the physical space at which the mobile unit is stationed, scheduling and patient intake support, and access to clinical records as necessary for the imaging services.

In consideration for the use of AHT's facility space and support services, Meridian pays AHT a per-scan facility access fee of $185 for each scan performed. The fee is calculated monthly based on the number of completed scans during the preceding month, and payment is due within 30 days of invoice. There is no fixed monthly minimum, no cap on the number of scans, and no alternative fee structure (such as a fixed rental payment) contemplated by the agreement.

During fiscal year 2022, Meridian performed approximately 4,200 scans at AHT's Connecticut clinic locations, resulting in total facility access fee payments from Meridian to AHT of approximately $777,000. During the same period, AHT physicians generated approximately $2.8 million in referrals to Meridian for MRI and advanced diagnostic imaging services payable by Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers.

Meridian is owned by Dr. Franklin Osei, a board-certified radiologist who holds a 60% managing membership interest, and Gerald Pratt, a non-physician investor who holds the remaining 40% membership interest. Dr. Osei is not employed by AHT and does not maintain any other contractual or financial relationship with AHT beyond the Meridian Agreement.

2. Stark Law Analysis

DHS Category Implicated. The DHS category implicated by this arrangement is "radiology and certain other imaging services," as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(6) and the corresponding regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 411.351. MRI services fall squarely within this DHS category.

Referral Relationship. AHT-employed physicians refer patients to Meridian for MRI services. Meridian is an entity that furnishes DHS to patients referred by AHT physicians. The referral relationship between AHT physicians and Meridian is well-established and documented in the referral data provided by AHT's billing and revenue cycle department.

Financial Relationship. Meridian pays AHT the per-scan facility access fee. This compensation flows from Meridian (the DHS entity to which AHT physicians refer) to AHT (the entity that employs the referring physicians). Under the Stark Law's framework for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(2)), an unbroken chain of financial relationships exists: AHT physicians (the referring physicians) are employed by AHT, and AHT receives per-scan fees from Meridian (the entity furnishing DHS). The aggregate compensation between AHT and Meridian varies with the volume and value of DHS referrals, because each scan referred by an AHT physician generates a $185 payment from Meridian to AHT.

Exception Analysis. We have analyzed the Meridian arrangement under each of the Stark Law exceptions that could potentially apply:

Space Rental Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(a)). The space rental exception permits compensation arrangements for the rental of office space if, among other requirements, the rental charges over the term of the agreement are set in advance, are consistent with fair market value, and are not determined using a formula based on the volume or value of referrals. The per-scan facility access fee of $185 per scan is, by definition, determined using a formula that directly incorporates the volume of referrals — each scan referred generates a fee payment. This structure is fundamentally inconsistent with the requirement that rental charges not be determined using a formula based on the volume or value of referrals. The space rental exception is therefore unavailable.

Equipment Rental Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(b)). The equipment rental exception contains requirements substantially parallel to those of the space rental exception, including the prohibition on compensation determined using a formula based on volume or value of referrals. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the space rental exception, the per-scan fee structure fails this requirement. The equipment rental exception is therefore unavailable.

Fair Market Value Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)). The fair market value exception requires, among other conditions, that compensation be set in advance, consistent with fair market value, and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals. The per-scan fee inherently takes into account the volume of referrals — the total compensation paid by Meridian to AHT is a direct function of the number of scans referred. Even if the $185 per-scan amount itself were demonstrated to be consistent with fair market value on a per-unit basis, the structure of the compensation arrangement — which ties total compensation to referral volume — is inconsistent with the "not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals" requirement. The fair market value exception is therefore unavailable.

Indirect Compensation Arrangement Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(p)). This exception is available for indirect compensation arrangements if, among other conditions, the compensation received by the referring physician does not vary with the volume or value of referrals. While the individual compensation received by AHT physicians from AHT (i.e., their salaries) may not itself vary directly with the volume of Meridian referrals, the aggregate compensation flowing between AHT and Meridian — the link in the chain closest to the DHS entity — does vary directly with referral volume. The regulatory framework for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements requires examination of the compensation at each link in the chain. The per-scan fee structure at the AHT-Meridian link varies with volume and therefore may prevent the indirect compensation arrangement exception from applying, depending on CMS's interpretation of the "varies with" analysis at each link in the chain. We note that there is some ambiguity in the regulatory framework regarding whether the relevant inquiry focuses on the compensation received by the referring physician or the compensation at the link closest to the DHS entity. However, the more conservative and prudent interpretation — and the one most consistent with CMS guidance — is that compensation that varies with volume at any link in the chain undermines the availability of this exception.

Conclusion. The per-scan fee structure of the Meridian facility access fee arrangement presents a strong basis for finding a technical Stark Law violation. The fee is facially inconsistent with the volume/value requirements of the space rental, equipment rental, fair market value, and indirect compensation arrangement exceptions. While we acknowledge some interpretive ambiguity regarding the indirect compensation arrangement exception analysis, the overall risk profile is such that we treat this arrangement as non-compliant for purposes of overpayment exposure assessment and remediation planning.

3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure

The relevant period for overpayment exposure analysis extends from March 1, 2021 (the effective date of the Meridian Agreement) through the date on which the arrangement is restructured to achieve compliance. For purposes of this preliminary estimate, we assume restructuring will be completed within approximately 60 days of the date of this memorandum (i.e., by approximately August 19, 2023), resulting in a total non-compliant period of approximately 29 months.

The estimated DHS referral volumes from AHT physicians to Meridian during the relevant period are as follows:

Under the Stark Law, the full amount of claims for DHS furnished pursuant to a non-compliant financial relationship is subject to refund. This $6.53 million figure represents AHT's maximum theoretical gross overpayment exposure for the Meridian arrangement. However, this figure represents gross billing across all payers. Applying AHT's 61% Medicare/Medicaid payer mix yields an estimated $3.98 million in federal health care program payments at risk (i.e., the amount that could be subject to refund to Medicare and Medicaid).

We emphasize that this $3.98 million figure represents the maximum theoretical exposure under a strict Stark interpretation in which all DHS furnished during the non-compliant period is tainted by the prohibited financial relationship. As discussed in Section II.B above, SRDP settlements historically resolve at substantially reduced amounts — typically 1.5 to 3 times the value of the non-compliant financial relationship (here, the facility access fees totaling approximately $1.94 million over the relevant period), rather than the full DHS amount. Accordingly, if AHT were to file an SRDP disclosure limited to the Meridian arrangement, the expected settlement range would be approximately $2.9 million to $5.8 million based on the financial relationship multiplier, compared to the $3.98 million theoretical maximum based on DHS claims.

4. Risk Assessment

Risk Level: HIGH

The Meridian per-scan facility access fee is facially inconsistent with the requirements of all applicable Stark Law exceptions regarding volume and value of referrals. The arrangement has been in place since March 2021, creating over two years of potentially tainted DHS referrals and a substantial aggregate exposure. The volume of DHS referrals ($2.8 million per year) and the direct linkage between scan volume and compensation payments create an arrangement that any rigorous compliance review would flag as problematic.

Mitigating factors. There is no evidence that the per-scan fee structure was adopted with the intent to induce referrals to Meridian. While intent is irrelevant for purposes of Stark Law liability (which is a strict liability statute), the absence of scienter may be relevant to CMS's settlement posture in an SRDP proceeding and to any parallel AKS analysis. Additionally, the Meridian arrangement provides legitimate clinical services to AHT patients, and the $185 per-scan fee itself may be supportable as consistent with fair market value on a per-unit basis — the structural deficiency relates to the per-scan (volume-based) method of determining compensation, not necessarily to the rate itself.

Aggravating factors. The DHS referral volume is significant ($2.8 million in FY2022 alone). The fee is directly and explicitly tied to scan volume, with no fixed component, no minimum, and no alternative fee structure. The arrangement has been in place for over two years. These factors collectively present a clear compliance failure that would be difficult to defend in the event of a government audit, qui tam action, or CMS investigation.

B. Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. — Preferred Laboratory Arrangement

1. Arrangement Summary

AHT and Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. ("Pinnacle") are parties to a Preferred Laboratory Agreement dated June 15, 2020 (the "Pinnacle Agreement"). Pinnacle's principal address is 1200 Warwick Avenue, Suite 110, Warwick, Rhode Island 02886, and its EIN is 05-6138290.

Under the Pinnacle Agreement, AHT clinics in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts designate Pinnacle as the preferred laboratory for outpatient laboratory testing services, subject to patient choice and payer network requirements. AHT physicians order laboratory tests through the ArborConnect electronic health records ("EHR") platform, and Pinnacle collects specimens, performs testing, and reports results. During fiscal year 2022, the DHS referral volume from AHT clinics to Pinnacle was approximately $1.65 million.

In connection with the Pinnacle Agreement, two categories of non-monetary remuneration are provided by Pinnacle to AHT:

No-Cost Electronic Laboratory Interface. Pinnacle has provided, at no cost to AHT, an electronic laboratory interface that is integrated into the ArborConnect EHR platform. This interface facilitates electronic test ordering, specimen tracking, and results reporting between AHT clinics and the Pinnacle laboratory. The estimated annual market value of this interface, based on comparable commercial licensing arrangements for laboratory information system interfaces, is approximately $120,000 per year. Pinnacle charges AHT $0 for this interface.

CME Sponsorship. During fiscal year 2022, Pinnacle sponsored four continuing medical education ("CME") events for AHT physicians, with an aggregate sponsorship value of approximately $86,000. These events included speaker fees, venue costs, catering, and printed materials.

In addition to the non-monetary remuneration issues, a separate ownership concern exists. Dr. Karen Ellsworth, the spouse of AHT's Chief Executive Officer Dr. Nathan Ellsworth, holds a 4.2% passive equity interest in Pinnacle. Dr. Karen Ellsworth is not employed by AHT and does not directly make referral decisions. However, as the spouse of AHT's CEO, she is an "immediate family member" of a physician who may influence referral decisions at AHT, which implicates the Stark Law's prohibition on referrals to entities in which a referring physician or immediate family member holds an ownership or investment interest.

2. Stark Law Analysis — Non-Monetary Remuneration

DHS Category Implicated. The DHS category implicated by the Pinnacle arrangement is "clinical laboratory services," as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(6) and the corresponding regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 411.351.

Referral and Financial Relationship. AHT-employed physicians refer patients to Pinnacle for outpatient laboratory services. Pinnacle furnishes DHS to patients referred by AHT physicians. The no-cost laboratory interface and the CME sponsorship constitute remuneration flowing from Pinnacle (the DHS entity) to AHT (the entity employing the referring physicians). This creates an indirect compensation arrangement under the Stark Law's framework, as there is an unbroken chain of financial relationships between the referring physicians (employed by AHT) and Pinnacle (the entity furnishing DHS), with the non-monetary remuneration constituting the compensation at the AHT-Pinnacle link in the chain.

Non-Monetary Compensation Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(k)). The non-monetary compensation exception permits non-monetary compensation from an entity to a physician (or an entity employing a physician) if the aggregate value of the non-monetary compensation does not exceed the annually adjusted threshold. For calendar year 2023, this threshold is $459. The no-cost laboratory interface alone, valued at approximately $120,000 per year, exceeds the $459 threshold by more than 260 times. The CME sponsorship, valued at approximately $86,000 in FY2022, similarly exceeds the threshold by approximately 187 times as a standalone item. The combined annual non-monetary remuneration of approximately $206,000 per year is, by any measure, orders of magnitude beyond the applicable threshold. The non-monetary compensation exception is therefore clearly and unambiguously unavailable for this arrangement.

Electronic Health Records Items Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(w)). The electronic health records items exception, which under certain conditions permitted donations of EHR-related items and services, was available through December 31, 2021, for most items and services. Even during the period when this exception was available, it imposed several conditions that are unlikely to have been satisfied in this case: the recipient was required to pay at least 15% of the donor's cost of the items and services (AHT paid $0); the items and services had to be necessary and used predominantly to create, maintain, transmit, or receive electronic health records; and the arrangement had to be set forth in a written agreement. Based on our review of the Pinnacle Agreement and the circumstances surrounding the laboratory interface provision, these conditions were not met. Moreover, the exception has been sunset for most items as of December 31, 2021, rendering it unavailable for the ongoing provision of the interface in 2022 and 2023.

Other Potential Exceptions. We have also considered whether the laboratory interface or CME sponsorship could qualify under any other Stark exception, including the fair market value exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)), the personal services arrangement exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(d)), or any of the compensation arrangement exceptions applicable to indirect compensation arrangements. None of these exceptions provides a viable path to compliance given the nature and magnitude of the remuneration involved.

3. Stark Law Analysis — Dr. Karen Ellsworth's Ownership Interest

Dr. Karen Ellsworth is the spouse of Dr. Nathan Ellsworth, AHT's Chief Executive Officer. As a spouse, Dr. Karen Ellsworth is an "immediate family member" of Dr. Nathan Ellsworth as that term is defined in the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(2) and 42 C.F.R. § 411.351). Dr. Nathan Ellsworth is a physician who, in his capacity as CEO of AHT, may make or influence referral decisions, including decisions regarding the designation of preferred laboratory providers and the routing of laboratory test orders.

Dr. Karen Ellsworth's 4.2% passive equity interest in Pinnacle constitutes an "ownership or investment interest" under the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(2)(A)). The Stark Law prohibits a physician from making referrals for DHS to an entity in which the physician or an immediate family member holds an ownership or investment interest, unless an applicable exception is satisfied.

The exceptions potentially applicable to ownership interests in entities providing DHS are narrow:

Publicly Traded Securities (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(a)). This exception applies to ownership of investment securities that may be purchased on terms generally available to the public and that are listed on a national exchange or traded under an automated interdealer quotation system. Pinnacle is a privately held company and its equity interests are not publicly traded. This exception is inapplicable.

Mutual Funds (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(b)). This exception applies to ownership interests in mutual funds. Dr. Ellsworth's interest is a direct equity interest in Pinnacle, not a mutual fund investment. This exception is inapplicable.

Rural Provider Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(c)). This exception provides a limited carve-out for ownership interests in entities located in rural areas as defined by CMS. Pinnacle is located in Warwick, Rhode Island, and AHT's Rhode Island clinics that refer to Pinnacle are similarly located in non-rural areas. This exception is inapplicable.

No other ownership interest exception appears applicable. Therefore, to the extent that referrals from AHT to Pinnacle are attributable to or influenced by Dr. Nathan Ellsworth — whether through his direct ordering of tests, his designation of Pinnacle as a preferred laboratory, his oversight of referral protocols, or his general managerial authority over AHT's clinical operations — such referrals may constitute prohibited referrals under the Stark Law by virtue of his spouse's ownership interest in Pinnacle.

4. Estimated Overpayment Exposure

The relevant period for overpayment exposure analysis extends from June 15, 2020 (the effective date of the Pinnacle Agreement) through the date on which the non-compliant elements of the arrangement are remediated. The estimated DHS referral volumes from AHT physicians to Pinnacle during the relevant period are as follows:

Applying AHT's 61% Medicare/Medicaid payer mix yields an estimated $2.97 million in federal health care program payments at risk over the relevant period.

However, the overpayment analysis for the Pinnacle arrangement is complicated by several factors. First, the question of severability: if the underlying laboratory referral relationship between AHT and Pinnacle could, in the absence of the non-compliant remuneration (the no-cost lab interface and CME sponsorship), satisfy an alternative Stark exception — such as the personal services arrangement exception or the fair market value exception for the laboratory services agreement itself — then only the period during which the non-compliant remuneration tainted the arrangement would be relevant, and the analysis would focus on the remuneration rather than the entire DHS volume. In practice, however, the non-monetary remuneration has been continuous since the inception of the Pinnacle Agreement, so the tainted period effectively covers the entire arrangement.

Second, the ownership interest issue involving Dr. Karen Ellsworth independently taints the arrangement for any referrals that are attributable to or directed by Dr. Nathan Ellsworth. Quantifying the proportion of AHT's Pinnacle referrals that are attributable to Dr. Nathan Ellsworth's influence presents an additional analytical challenge. As CEO, Dr. Ellsworth exercises general supervisory authority over AHT's clinical operations and may have been involved in the decision to designate Pinnacle as a preferred laboratory, but he may not personally order laboratory tests for individual patients. The proportion of referrals tainted by the ownership interest could range from a small fraction (if limited to tests personally ordered by Dr. Ellsworth) to the entirety (if CMS takes the position that his managerial influence over AHT's laboratory referral patterns taints all referrals to Pinnacle).

5. Risk Assessment

Risk Level: HIGH

The Pinnacle arrangement presents two independent and compounding Stark Law concerns, either of which standing alone would warrant a high-risk classification.

Mitigating factors. Dr. Karen Ellsworth's ownership interest is passive (4.2%) and relatively modest. Dr. Nathan Ellsworth serves in an administrative/executive capacity (CEO) and may not personally make referral decisions for individual patients. The laboratory interface provides legitimate operational value to AHT's clinical operations by facilitating electronic test ordering and results reporting. The CME sponsorship events may have provided genuine educational value to AHT physicians.

Aggravating factors. The arrangement has been in place since June 2020, a period of approximately three years, during which the non-compliant elements have been continuously operative. The combined non-monetary remuneration ($206,000 per year) is substantial in absolute terms and dramatically exceeds the applicable Stark threshold ($459 per year). The annual DHS referral volume ($1.65 million in FY2022) is significant. The ownership interest held by the CEO's spouse was not disclosed to or tracked by AHT's compliance program, suggesting a gap in the organization's conflict-of-interest identification and monitoring processes. The convergence of the non-monetary remuneration and ownership interest issues at the same DHS entity creates a compounded compliance risk that may attract heightened scrutiny from CMS in any review or disclosure context.

C. Medical Director Compensation Arrangements

1. Arrangement Summary

AHT maintains 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements with physicians who provide medical directorship and clinical oversight services across AHT's 23 outpatient clinic locations and ancillary service lines. These physicians provide a range of services, including clinical oversight, quality assurance, peer review, policy development, staff supervision, credentialing support, and regulatory compliance activities.

Annual stipends across the 38 arrangements range from $25,000 to $110,000, with aggregate annual compensation across all 38 arrangements totaling approximately $1.92 million. The mean documented hours of service per month across all arrangements is 8.4 hours. Based on these figures, the effective average hourly rate across all 38 arrangements is approximately $501.28 per hour, calculated as follows:

$1,920,000 ÷ (38 physicians × 8.4 hours/month × 12 months) = $1,920,000 ÷ 3,830.4 hours = $501.28/hour

This effective average hourly rate has been flagged as above the 90th percentile for multiple physician specialties based on industry benchmark data from MGMA (Medical Group Management Association) and SullivanCotter. While individual arrangements vary significantly — a physician receiving a $25,000 annual stipend for 8.4 hours per month would have an effective hourly rate of approximately $248 per hour, while a physician receiving $110,000 for the same hours would have an effective rate of approximately $1,091 per hour — the aggregate data suggests a systemic pattern of above-market compensation for medical directorship services.

In recognition of this concern, AHT retained Northbridge Valuation Advisors LLC ("Northbridge") in February 2023 to prepare independent FMV opinions for all 52 physician compensation arrangements within AHT's portfolio, including the 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements and 14 Lakeview legacy employment agreements. Northbridge's engagement is led by Sandra Kilpatrick, ASA, CVA, and the opinions are expected to address fair market value, commercial reasonableness, and the volume/value nexus for each arrangement. At the time of this memorandum, Northbridge has not yet delivered its final opinions, and the analysis below is therefore based on preliminary benchmark data and the aggregate metrics described above.

2. Stark Law Analysis

All 38 medical directors are physicians who are in a position to make or influence referrals to AHT for DHS, including clinical laboratory services, radiology and imaging services, and physical therapy services — all of which are provided at AHT's 23 outpatient clinic locations. The compensation paid by AHT to these physicians constitutes a direct compensation arrangement under the Stark Law (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(a)), as AHT pays compensation directly to each physician without any intervening entity.

The Stark Law exceptions most directly applicable to medical director compensation arrangements are:

Personal Services Arrangement Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(d)). This exception requires, among other conditions, that: (a) the arrangement be set out in writing, signed by the parties, and specify the services covered by the arrangement; (b) the arrangement cover all of the services to be furnished by the physician (or be for identifiable services and be for a term of at least one year); (c) the aggregate compensation over the term of the arrangement be set in advance, not exceed fair market value, and not be determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated between the parties; and (d) the services to be furnished under the arrangement not involve the counseling or promotion of a business arrangement or other activity that violates federal or state law.

Fair Market Value Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)). This exception requires that: (a) the arrangement be in writing, signed by the parties, and specify the services covered; (b) the arrangement cover only identifiable items or services, and the compensation for each item or service be separately specified; (c) the compensation be set in advance, consistent with fair market value, and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the referring physician; and (d) the arrangement be commercially reasonable.

Both exceptions share the critical requirement that compensation be consistent with fair market value and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals. The effective average hourly rate of $501.28 — which exceeds the 90th percentile of physician specialty benchmarks — raises a strong inference that compensation exceeds FMV for some or all of these arrangements. If compensation exceeds FMV, neither the personal services arrangement exception nor the fair market value exception is available, and referrals by these physicians to AHT for DHS would be prohibited under the Stark Law.

Additionally, our preliminary review of the medical director agreements has identified several additional deficiencies that may independently undermine the availability of the applicable exceptions. Specifically, several agreements lack adequate documentation of specific duties and responsibilities, time commitment requirements, and expected deliverables. The absence of such documentation undermines the "commercially reasonable" requirement — a medical director arrangement is commercially reasonable only if it is reasonable in the absence of referrals, meaning that a reasonable business person would enter into the arrangement to obtain the specified services at the specified compensation, irrespective of any referrals generated. Without clear documentation of the services to be provided, the hours required, and the deliverables expected, it is difficult to demonstrate that the arrangement is commercially reasonable. Moreover, some agreements may lack the one-year minimum term required by the personal services arrangement exception, or may have expired and been operating on a holdover basis beyond the timeframes permitted under the Stark Law Modernization Final Rule.

3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure

The total DHS volume attributable to referrals by the 38 medical directors is substantial but requires detailed analysis of referral patterns for each individual physician. AHT's 23 clinics provide clinical laboratory services, radiology and imaging services, and physical therapy services — all of which are DHS categories — and the medical directors are generally in a position to refer patients for these services.

A precise quantification of the DHS referral volume attributable to each medical director requires extraction and analysis of referral data from AHT's billing systems, cross-referenced with claims data for each physician NPI. This analysis is currently underway and is expected to be completed in conjunction with the Northbridge FMV opinion deliverables.

As a conservative preliminary estimate, if each of the 38 medical directors refers even a modest volume of DHS to AHT facilities, the aggregate Medicare/Medicaid payments associated with those referrals could be substantial. Based on discussions with AHT's revenue cycle team and a review of aggregate DHS volumes at AHT's clinic locations, we estimate that the annual volume of potentially tainted DHS referrals attributable to the 38 medical directors falls in the range of approximately $3 million to $8 million per year, depending on the referral patterns and clinical activity levels of each individual physician. This range must be multiplied by the relevant non-compliant period for each arrangement, which varies by individual agreement inception date.

We emphasize that not all 38 arrangements necessarily fail the FMV requirement. The $501.28 effective average hourly rate is an aggregate figure that masks significant variation among individual arrangements. Some arrangements at the lower end of the stipend range — for example, a physician receiving $25,000 per year for 8.4 hours per month of documented service (an effective rate of approximately $248 per hour) — may well fall within the FMV range for the applicable specialty and geographic market. Others, particularly those at the upper end of the stipend range or those with particularly limited documented hours, are more likely to exceed FMV. The Northbridge FMV opinions will identify which specific arrangements are above FMV and by how much, allowing for a more precise quantification of the actual overpayment exposure.

The maximum exposure period for each individual arrangement varies by its inception date. Some agreements predate AHT's establishment and have been in effect for several years, while others were assumed in the Lakeview acquisition and have been in effect since August 15, 2022. The exposure calculation will need to be performed on an arrangement-by-arrangement basis once the Northbridge opinions are received.

4. Risk Assessment

Risk Level: HIGH (aggregate) / MODERATE to HIGH (individual arrangements)

The effective average hourly rate of $501.28 above the 90th percentile is a significant red flag that, in the aggregate, suggests a systemic compensation issue across AHT's medical director arrangements. The number of potentially non-compliant arrangements (38) and the aggregate annual compensation ($1.92 million) compound the risk. The systemic nature of the issue suggests a programmatic compliance failure rather than an isolated incident — a characterization that could attract heightened regulatory scrutiny.

Mitigating factors. The above-FMV compensation may be attributable, at least in part, to inadequate documentation of hours actually worked rather than intentional overpayment. If medical directors are in fact providing more hours of service than the mean 8.4 hours per month reflected in the documentation, the effective hourly rate would be lower. The Northbridge FMV opinions will provide defensible benchmark values and, where possible, will assist in establishing commercially reasonable compensation ranges for each arrangement. Additionally, AHT is undertaking prompt remediation of these arrangements, which will be a significant mitigating factor in any enforcement context.

Aggravating factors. The number of potentially non-compliant arrangements is substantial (38 out of 38 IC/medical director arrangements). The effective average rate significantly exceeds industry benchmarks. The documentation deficiencies (missing duty descriptions, time requirements, and deliverables) suggest that AHT did not have adequate processes in place to ensure Stark compliance for medical director arrangements. The systemic nature of the issue — affecting the majority of AHT's medical director relationships — raises a more fundamental question about the adequacy of AHT's compliance infrastructure and physician compensation oversight.

D. Lakeview Legacy Arrangements

1. Overview. As part of its asset acquisition of Lakeview Medical Associates, P.C., which closed on August 15, 2022, AHT assumed a portfolio of physician agreements and real estate leases previously maintained by Lakeview. This portfolio includes: 14 physician agreements (12 employment agreements and 2 independent contractor agreements); 3 medical director agreements with annual stipends of $45,000, $60,000, and $72,000, respectively; and 2 office leases at 75 Belmont Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, and 310 Main Street, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.

Prior to the acquisition, Lakeview generated annual revenue of approximately $18.2 million, of which approximately $10.9 million (approximately 60%) was derived from Medicare and Medicaid programs. This payer mix is consistent with AHT's overall Medicare/Medicaid revenue share of approximately 61%.

The Grayson Whitaker gap assessment identified multiple compliance gaps in the Lakeview legacy arrangements, including: missing or absent FMV substantiation for physician compensation; expired agreement terms and holdover issues; non-compliant compensation formulas; and inadequate documentation of duties, hours, and deliverables for medical director stipend arrangements.

A key personnel transition associated with the acquisition was the appointment of Dr. Vivian Chao, formerly the managing partner of Lakeview, to the position of AHT Regional Medical Director for the Central Massachusetts region. Dr. Chao's compensation and duties under her new AHT arrangement are included in the Northbridge FMV opinion engagement.

2. Stark Law Analysis

The physician employment agreements assumed from Lakeview are analyzed primarily under the employment exception to the Stark Law (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(c)). The employment exception requires that: (a) the employment is for identifiable services; (b) the amount of remuneration is consistent with fair market value for the services; (c) the remuneration is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals by the referring physician (with an exception for productivity bonuses based on personally performed services); (d) the remuneration is provided pursuant to an arrangement that would be commercially reasonable even if no referrals were made; and (e) the arrangement otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

A significant concern relates to the holdover provisions applicable to arrangements that expired but continued in effect without formal renewal. The 2021 Stark Law Modernization Final Rule (85 Fed. Reg. 77492, effective January 19, 2021) updated the holdover provisions at 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(a)(7) (for space rentals), 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(b)(6) (for equipment rentals), and other exceptions, generally permitting holdover for up to six months following the expiration of an agreement that previously satisfied all applicable exception requirements. Several Lakeview agreements appear to have been operating on a holdover basis for periods extending beyond the six-month holdover window permitted under the Modernization Final Rule, creating a potential gap period during which no Stark exception may apply.

Additionally, the Lakeview arrangements lack independent FMV documentation. Westbrook Hale LLP (lead partner: Elena Marchetti), the law firm that represented AHT in the Lakeview acquisition, performed standard acquisition-related due diligence but did not obtain Stark-specific FMV opinions for the assumed physician compensation arrangements. This gap is significant because the employment exception requires compensation consistent with FMV, and in the absence of contemporaneous FMV substantiation, it is difficult to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

The three Lakeview medical director agreements, with stipends of $45,000, $60,000, and $72,000, require FMV assessment relative to the documented duties and hours of service. These assessments are included in the pending Northbridge engagement.

3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure

The relevant period for overpayment exposure with respect to the Lakeview legacy arrangements begins on August 15, 2022 (the closing date of the acquisition) and extends through the date of remediation. DHS generated by the 14 Lakeview physicians at AHT facilities constitutes a subset of AHT's total DHS volume and requires isolation of referrals attributable to these specific physicians.

Quantification of this exposure is difficult without complete referral data linked to the individual NPIs of the 14 Lakeview physicians. However, given that Lakeview's pre-acquisition Medicare/Medicaid revenue was approximately $10.9 million per year — a figure that necessarily includes DHS furnished based on referrals by Lakeview physicians — the potential DHS volume at risk could be substantial. We note that not all of Lakeview's pre-acquisition revenue constituted DHS; the $10.9 million figure includes professional services revenue as well. Detailed claims-level analysis will be required to isolate the DHS component.

A significant mitigating factor for the Lakeview arrangements is that the holdover provisions under the Modernization Final Rule may protect some arrangements for a limited transitional period following the acquisition. Specifically, if a Lakeview agreement was in compliance with an applicable Stark exception immediately prior to its expiration, and the holdover period has not exceeded six months, the arrangement may benefit from the holdover safe harbor during that interim period. Given that the acquisition closed on August 15, 2022, any arrangements that expired prior to the acquisition and were operating on holdover would have exhausted the six-month holdover period by approximately February 15, 2023. Arrangements that were current at the time of acquisition but have since expired would need to be evaluated individually for holdover eligibility.

Risk Level: MODERATE — contingent on the results of the Northbridge FMV opinions and the timeline for completing remediation of the assumed arrangements. The shorter exposure period (post-August 15, 2022) and the potential availability of holdover protections reduce the risk relative to the Meridian and Pinnacle arrangements.

E. ConnectiCare MSA Arrangements — Indirect Compensation

1. Overview. AHT provides management services to nine independently owned physician practices in Strathmore Mutual Insurance, Connecticut metropolitan area through ConnectiCare Physicians Network, LLC ("CPN"), a management services organization based at 55 Asylum Street, 7th Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103. Under the management services agreements ("MSAs") between AHT and each managed practice, AHT provides administrative, billing, coding, human resources, information technology, compliance, and other management support services. AHT's management fee is calculated as 15% of collected net revenue for each managed practice.

In fiscal year 2022, the aggregate collected net revenue across the nine managed practices was approximately $31.53 million, generating management fee revenue to AHT of approximately $4.73 million. The managed practices refer patients to AHT-owned ancillary services, including clinical laboratory, diagnostic imaging, and physical therapy, all of which constitute DHS categories under the Stark Law.

2. Stark Law Analysis

The MSA arrangements require analysis under the Stark Law's indirect compensation arrangement framework (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)). An indirect compensation arrangement exists when: (a) there is an unbroken chain of persons or entities between the

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is a privileged and confidential attorney-client communication and attorney work product prepared in connection with the provision of legal advice. It is not intended for disclosure to third parties and should not be disclosed without the prior written consent of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Disclosure to any third party may constitute a waiver of applicable privileges.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patricia Yamamoto, General Counsel, Arbor Health Technologies Inc. Derek Huang, Chief Compliance Officer, Arbor Health Technologies Inc.
FROM: Miriam Calloway, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Christopher Aiken, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Amy Whitfield, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: June 20, 2023
RE: Evaluation of CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP) — Analysis of Potential Stark Law Violations and Voluntary Disclosure Considerations
C&H Matter No.: 1010-00003
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate whether any Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn) violations identified during the comprehensive self-assessment engagement undertaken by Arbor Health Technologies Inc. ("AHT") warrant voluntary self-disclosure to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") under the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol ("SRDP"). This memorandum sets forth the factual circumstances underlying the identified arrangements of concern, analyzes the applicable Stark Law provisions and exceptions, quantifies estimated overpayment exposure, and provides our recommendation regarding the advisability of filing an SRDP disclosure at this time.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") was retained by AHT on January 30, 2023, pursuant to AHT Board Resolution No. 2023-01-004 (adopted January 24, 2023), to conduct a comprehensive self-assessment of physician compensation arrangements, referral relationships, and vendor contracts under the Stark Law and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS"). The scope of the engagement encompasses all physician compensation arrangements maintained by AHT, including both W-2 employment agreements and independent contractor/medical director arrangements, as well as all material vendor and ancillary service relationships that involve referrals for designated health services ("DHS").
The self-assessment was triggered by two events occurring in close succession. First, AHT completed the integration of Lakeview Medical Associates, P.C. ("Lakeview"), acquired via asset purchase on August 15, 2022, for an aggregate purchase price of $11.4 million. The Lakeview acquisition added 14 physician agreements, 3 medical director stipend arrangements, and 2 office leases to AHT's portfolio, many of which had not been subject to Stark-specific compliance review or independent fair market value ("FMV") assessment. Second, the gap assessment report prepared by Grayson Whitaker & Associates LLP (Report No. GW-AHT-2022-Final, dated December 12, 2022) identified 17 high-risk and 23 moderate-risk arrangements within AHT's existing and newly acquired contractual portfolio. The Grayson Whitaker report recommended that AHT engage external regulatory counsel to conduct a deeper legal analysis of the flagged arrangements, and the Board acted promptly in response.
AHT currently operates 23 outpatient clinics across four states: Massachusetts (14 locations), Connecticut (4 locations), Rhode Island (3 locations), and New Hampshire (2 locations). AHT employs 147 physicians on a W-2 basis and maintains 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements. For fiscal year 2022, AHT reported net revenue of approximately $214.3 million, of which approximately $130.7 million (61%) derived from Medicare and Medicaid programs and approximately $83.6 million (39%) derived from commercial payer contracts. AHT's National Provider Identifier ("NPI") is 1497253810; its lead Provider Transaction Access Number ("PTAN") is 27MA4891; and its Employer Identification Number ("EIN") is 84-3291057. These identifiers are relevant to any future CMS filings or refund submissions.
Based on our analysis, three categories of arrangements present the highest risk of technical Stark Law violations:
(1) The Meridian Diagnostics LLC facility access fee arrangement, in which Meridian pays AHT a per-scan facility access fee of $185 for mobile MRI services provided at AHT's Connecticut clinics, creating a compensation arrangement that varies directly with the volume and value of DHS referrals;
(2) The Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. preferred laboratory relationship, which involves two distinct Stark concerns: (a) the provision by Pinnacle to AHT of a no-cost electronic laboratory interface valued at approximately $120,000 per year, plus CME sponsorship valued at approximately $86,000 per year, both of which constitute non-monetary remuneration far exceeding the applicable Stark threshold; and (b) the 4.2% passive equity interest held by Dr. Karen Ellsworth (spouse of AHT CEO Dr. Nathan Ellsworth) in Pinnacle, creating a prohibited ownership interest in an entity furnishing DHS; and
(3) Above-FMV medical director compensation arrangements, in which AHT's 38 independent contractor/medical director agreements reflect an effective average hourly rate of approximately $501.28, which exceeds the 90th percentile of applicable physician specialty benchmarks based on MGMA and SullivanCotter data, raising a strong inference that some or all of these arrangements fail to satisfy the FMV requirement of the personal services arrangement and fair market value exceptions.
Overall Recommendation. At this time, voluntary SRDP filing is not recommended, provided AHT undertakes timely remediation within the 90-day implementation timeline outlined in the final remediation roadmap to be presented to the Board Compliance Committee on June 27, 2023. This recommendation is contingent upon AHT's prompt restructuring of the Meridian and Pinnacle arrangements, completion of the Northbridge Valuation Advisors FMV opinions, and return of any identified overpayments within the 60-day statutory window mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d). AHT must closely monitor the 60-day repayment obligation for any identified overpayments, as failure to timely report and return an overpayment would convert a Stark compliance issue into potential False Claims Act liability — a materially different and more serious category of legal risk. We discuss each of these matters in detail below.
II. Background on the CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The physician self-referral law, commonly known as the Stark Law, is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. The Stark Law prohibits a physician from making referrals for designated health services payable by Medicare or Medicaid to an entity with which the physician (or an immediate family member of the physician) has a financial relationship, unless a specific statutory or regulatory exception applies. The term "financial relationship" encompasses both ownership or investment interests and compensation arrangements, whether direct or indirect. The categories of DHS are enumerated in the statute and include, among others, clinical laboratory services; physical therapy, occupational therapy, and outpatient speech-language pathology services; radiology and certain other imaging services; radiation therapy services and supplies; durable medical equipment and supplies; parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies; prosthetics, orthotics, and prosthetic devices and supplies; home health services; outpatient prescription drugs; and inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
A critical feature of the Stark Law — and one that distinguishes it from the Anti-Kickback Statute — is that it is a strict liability statute. No element of intent is required to establish a violation. A purely technical or inadvertent failure to satisfy all elements of an applicable exception renders the referral prohibited and all claims submitted for DHS furnished pursuant to that referral subject to denial and refund, regardless of whether the parties intended to comply, believed in good faith that they were in compliance, or derived any improper benefit from the arrangement. This strict liability framework means that even arrangements entered into for entirely legitimate business purposes and at fair market value can give rise to Stark violations if they fail to satisfy each and every element of the applicable exception.
The consequences of a Stark Law violation are significant. They include: denial of payment for DHS claims submitted in violation of the prohibition; an obligation to refund amounts collected from Medicare and Medicaid for improperly billed DHS; potential liability under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733), which provides for treble damages and per-claim penalties; Civil Monetary Penalties of up to $15,000 per service furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral and up to $100,000 per arrangement entered into with knowledge that the arrangement constitutes a circumvention scheme; and potential exclusion from federal health care programs under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7.
Separately, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d), enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), imposes a 60-day repayment obligation on any person who has received an overpayment from a federal health care program. The statute requires that such person report and return the overpayment within 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified, or the date any corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. Failure to timely return an identified overpayment constitutes an "obligation" under the reverse false claims provision of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)), thereby converting a regulatory compliance failure into potential treble-damages liability. This provision is discussed in greater detail in Section V of this memorandum.
The SRDP was established by CMS pursuant to Section 6409 of the Affordable Care Act (codified as a note to 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn). Section 6409 directed CMS to establish a self-referral disclosure protocol that allows providers to voluntarily disclose actual or potential violations of the Stark Law. CMS published the initial SRDP in September 2010, with an updated protocol issued in March 2016 reflecting revisions to the submission requirements and evaluation methodology. The SRDP is administered by CMS's Center for Program Integrity.
B. SRDP Process Overview
The SRDP is a voluntary disclosure mechanism through which a health care provider may report to CMS an actual or potential violation of the Stark Law's physician self-referral prohibition. The protocol is intended to provide an alternative to full overpayment refunds and to encourage self-policing and voluntary compliance within the health care industry.
Under the SRDP, the disclosing party submits a detailed written disclosure to CMS that includes, at a minimum: (a) a complete description of the nature of the actual or potential violation; (b) the circumstances under which the financial relationship at issue arose and was maintained; (c) the period during which the non-compliant arrangement was in effect; (d) the DHS categories implicated by the arrangement; (e) identification of the applicable Stark exception(s) the party relied upon or believes may apply, together with a detailed explanation of why the exception requirements were not (or may not have been) satisfied; (f) a financial analysis quantifying the total amount of DHS claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid pursuant to referrals made during the non-compliant period; and (g) the total dollar amount of remuneration at issue in the financial relationship.
Upon receipt of a complete SRDP disclosure, CMS evaluates the submission and may engage in negotiations with the disclosing party regarding an appropriate settlement amount. Historically, SRDP settlements have ranged from approximately 1.5 times to 3 times the value of the financial relationship that formed the basis for the violation, rather than requiring refund of the full amount of DHS claims submitted during the non-compliant period. This represents a significant potential reduction in financial exposure compared to the theoretical maximum overpayment liability, which under a strict reading of the Stark Law would encompass all DHS furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. The settlement multiplier reflects CMS's consideration of various factors, including the nature and severity of the violation, the degree of cooperation by the disclosing party, the existence of self-remediation measures, and other relevant circumstances.
It is important to note that the SRDP is separate from and should not be confused with the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol ("OIG SDP"), which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and addresses violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)), Civil Monetary Penalties law, and other OIG-enforced statutes. The AKS-specific analysis of the arrangements discussed in this memorandum is addressed in a companion OIG SDP evaluation memorandum being prepared concurrently by this engagement team.
The typical resolution timeline for an SRDP filing is 12 to 24 months or longer from the date of submission to the execution of a settlement agreement with CMS. In practice, many SRDP matters have taken significantly longer, particularly where the submission involves complex financial relationships, multiple DHS categories, or large aggregate claims amounts. During the pendency of the SRDP review, the disclosing party is expected to cooperate fully with CMS, respond to requests for additional information, and refrain from engaging in any new conduct that would constitute a Stark violation.
The benefits of filing an SRDP disclosure include: reduced financial exposure relative to the full theoretical overpayment amount; reduced financial exposure relative to the potential damages in a False Claims Act qui tam action (which provides for treble damages plus per-claim penalties); demonstration of good faith compliance efforts, which may be viewed favorably by CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice; and potential mitigation of exclusion risk. The risks include: the disclosure creates a formal record with CMS acknowledging an actual or potential violation, which could be referenced in subsequent enforcement proceedings or litigation; there is no guarantee as to the outcome or settlement amount; and CMS retains the discretion to refer matters to the OIG for AKS investigation or to the Department of Justice for False Claims Act enforcement if the disclosed facts suggest conduct beyond a purely technical Stark violation.
C. Interaction with the 60-Day Repayment Obligation
The interaction between the SRDP and the 60-day repayment obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k(d) is a critical consideration in AHT's decision-making process and warrants careful analysis.
As noted above, upon identification of an overpayment from a federal health care program, AHT has 60 days to report and return the overpayment to CMS or the relevant Medicare Administrative Contractor. Failure to do so exposes AHT to liability under the reverse false claims provision of the False Claims Act. For AHT, the self-assessment process itself — including the Grayson Whitaker gap assessment and this C&H analysis — may constitute the exercise of "reasonable diligence" that triggers "identification" of an overpayment for purposes of starting the 60-day clock. We address this issue in detail in Section V below.
Critically, however, CMS has clarified that the submission of a complete SRDP disclosure tolls the 60-day repayment obligation while the disclosure is pending with CMS, provided the disclosing party continues to cooperate with CMS throughout the review process. This tolling mechanism provides an important practical benefit: it allows the disclosing party to avoid the immediate financial burden of a full overpayment refund while CMS evaluates the appropriate settlement amount. In the absence of an SRDP filing, the disclosing party would be required to calculate and return the full overpayment amount within 60 days, without the benefit of negotiating a reduced settlement.
The critical threshold question for AHT is whether, and at what precise point, AHT has "identified" any Stark-related overpayments. If identification has occurred or is imminent, AHT must either (a) file an SRDP disclosure to toll the 60-day clock, (b) calculate and return the full overpayment amount within 60 days, or (c) demonstrate that reasonable diligence is still ongoing and identification has not yet occurred. The timing of any overpayment conclusions must be carefully calibrated with remediation actions to ensure that AHT does not inadvertently trigger and then miss the 60-day deadline.
III. Identification and Analysis of Potential Stark Law Violations
This section sets forth C&H's detailed analysis of the specific arrangements identified as presenting the highest risk of Stark Law violations. For each arrangement, we describe the factual background, identify the applicable DHS category and financial relationship, analyze the relevant Stark Law exceptions, estimate the potential overpayment exposure, and assign a risk level. Our analysis is based on review of the underlying contractual documents, financial records, organizational charts, referral data provided by AHT, the Grayson Whitaker gap assessment report, and discussions with AHT's compliance and finance teams.
A. Meridian Diagnostics LLC — Facility Access Fee Arrangement
1. Arrangement Summary
AHT and Meridian Diagnostics LLC ("Meridian") are parties to a Services Agreement dated March 1, 2021 (the "Meridian Agreement"). Meridian's principal address is 88 Trumbull Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, and its EIN is 82-4019673.
Under the Meridian Agreement, Meridian provides mobile MRI and advanced diagnostic imaging services at four AHT clinic locations in Connecticut. Meridian supplies the mobile MRI unit, employs or contracts with the operating technicians, and is responsible for equipment maintenance and compliance with applicable licensing and accreditation requirements. AHT provides the physical space at which the mobile unit is stationed, scheduling and patient intake support, and access to clinical records as necessary for the imaging services.
In consideration for the use of AHT's facility space and support services, Meridian pays AHT a per-scan facility access fee of $185 for each scan performed. The fee is calculated monthly based on the number of completed scans during the preceding month, and payment is due within 30 days of invoice. There is no fixed monthly minimum, no cap on the number of scans, and no alternative fee structure (such as a fixed rental payment) contemplated by the agreement.
During fiscal year 2022, Meridian performed approximately 4,200 scans at AHT's Connecticut clinic locations, resulting in total facility access fee payments from Meridian to AHT of approximately $777,000. During the same period, AHT physicians generated approximately $2.8 million in referrals to Meridian for MRI and advanced diagnostic imaging services payable by Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers.
Meridian is owned by Dr. Franklin Osei, a board-certified radiologist who holds a 60% managing membership interest, and Gerald Pratt, a non-physician investor who holds the remaining 40% membership interest. Dr. Osei is not employed by AHT and does not maintain any other contractual or financial relationship with AHT beyond the Meridian Agreement.
2. Stark Law Analysis
DHS Category Implicated. The DHS category implicated by this arrangement is "radiology and certain other imaging services," as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(6) and the corresponding regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 411.351. MRI services fall squarely within this DHS category.
Referral Relationship. AHT-employed physicians refer patients to Meridian for MRI services. Meridian is an entity that furnishes DHS to patients referred by AHT physicians. The referral relationship between AHT physicians and Meridian is well-established and documented in the referral data provided by AHT's billing and revenue cycle department.
Financial Relationship. Meridian pays AHT the per-scan facility access fee. This compensation flows from Meridian (the DHS entity to which AHT physicians refer) to AHT (the entity that employs the referring physicians). Under the Stark Law's framework for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(2)), an unbroken chain of financial relationships exists: AHT physicians (the referring physicians) are employed by AHT, and AHT receives per-scan fees from Meridian (the entity furnishing DHS). The aggregate compensation between AHT and Meridian varies with the volume and value of DHS referrals, because each scan referred by an AHT physician generates a $185 payment from Meridian to AHT.
Exception Analysis. We have analyzed the Meridian arrangement under each of the Stark Law exceptions that could potentially apply:
Space Rental Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(a)). The space rental exception permits compensation arrangements for the rental of office space if, among other requirements, the rental charges over the term of the agreement are set in advance, are consistent with fair market value, and are not determined using a formula based on the volume or value of referrals. The per-scan facility access fee of $185 per scan is, by definition, determined using a formula that directly incorporates the volume of referrals — each scan referred generates a fee payment. This structure is fundamentally inconsistent with the requirement that rental charges not be determined using a formula based on the volume or value of referrals. The space rental exception is therefore unavailable.
Equipment Rental Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(b)). The equipment rental exception contains requirements substantially parallel to those of the space rental exception, including the prohibition on compensation determined using a formula based on volume or value of referrals. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the space rental exception, the per-scan fee structure fails this requirement. The equipment rental exception is therefore unavailable.
Fair Market Value Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)). The fair market value exception requires, among other conditions, that compensation be set in advance, consistent with fair market value, and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals. The per-scan fee inherently takes into account the volume of referrals — the total compensation paid by Meridian to AHT is a direct function of the number of scans referred. Even if the $185 per-scan amount itself were demonstrated to be consistent with fair market value on a per-unit basis, the structure of the compensation arrangement — which ties total compensation to referral volume — is inconsistent with the "not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals" requirement. The fair market value exception is therefore unavailable.
Indirect Compensation Arrangement Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(p)). This exception is available for indirect compensation arrangements if, among other conditions, the compensation received by the referring physician does not vary with the volume or value of referrals. While the individual compensation received by AHT physicians from AHT (i.e., their salaries) may not itself vary directly with the volume of Meridian referrals, the aggregate compensation flowing between AHT and Meridian — the link in the chain closest to the DHS entity — does vary directly with referral volume. The regulatory framework for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements requires examination of the compensation at each link in the chain. The per-scan fee structure at the AHT-Meridian link varies with volume and therefore may prevent the indirect compensation arrangement exception from applying, depending on CMS's interpretation of the "varies with" analysis at each link in the chain. We note that there is some ambiguity in the regulatory framework regarding whether the relevant inquiry focuses on the compensation received by the referring physician or the compensation at the link closest to the DHS entity. However, the more conservative and prudent interpretation — and the one most consistent with CMS guidance — is that compensation that varies with volume at any link in the chain undermines the availability of this exception.
Conclusion. The per-scan fee structure of the Meridian facility access fee arrangement presents a strong basis for finding a technical Stark Law violation. The fee is facially inconsistent with the volume/value requirements of the space rental, equipment rental, fair market value, and indirect compensation arrangement exceptions. While we acknowledge some interpretive ambiguity regarding the indirect compensation arrangement exception analysis, the overall risk profile is such that we treat this arrangement as non-compliant for purposes of overpayment exposure assessment and remediation planning.
3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure
The relevant period for overpayment exposure analysis extends from March 1, 2021 (the effective date of the Meridian Agreement) through the date on which the arrangement is restructured to achieve compliance. For purposes of this preliminary estimate, we assume restructuring will be completed within approximately 60 days of the date of this memorandum (i.e., by approximately August 19, 2023), resulting in a total non-compliant period of approximately 29 months.
The estimated DHS referral volumes from AHT physicians to Meridian during the relevant period are as follows:
Under the Stark Law, the full amount of claims for DHS furnished pursuant to a non-compliant financial relationship is subject to refund. This $6.53 million figure represents AHT's maximum theoretical gross overpayment exposure for the Meridian arrangement. However, this figure represents gross billing across all payers. Applying AHT's 61% Medicare/Medicaid payer mix yields an estimated $3.98 million in federal health care program payments at risk (i.e., the amount that could be subject to refund to Medicare and Medicaid).
We emphasize that this $3.98 million figure represents the maximum theoretical exposure under a strict Stark interpretation in which all DHS furnished during the non-compliant period is tainted by the prohibited financial relationship. As discussed in Section II.B above, SRDP settlements historically resolve at substantially reduced amounts — typically 1.5 to 3 times the value of the non-compliant financial relationship (here, the facility access fees totaling approximately $1.94 million over the relevant period), rather than the full DHS amount. Accordingly, if AHT were to file an SRDP disclosure limited to the Meridian arrangement, the expected settlement range would be approximately $2.9 million to $5.8 million based on the financial relationship multiplier, compared to the $3.98 million theoretical maximum based on DHS claims.
4. Risk Assessment
Risk Level: HIGH
The Meridian per-scan facility access fee is facially inconsistent with the requirements of all applicable Stark Law exceptions regarding volume and value of referrals. The arrangement has been in place since March 2021, creating over two years of potentially tainted DHS referrals and a substantial aggregate exposure. The volume of DHS referrals ($2.8 million per year) and the direct linkage between scan volume and compensation payments create an arrangement that any rigorous compliance review would flag as problematic.
Mitigating factors. There is no evidence that the per-scan fee structure was adopted with the intent to induce referrals to Meridian. While intent is irrelevant for purposes of Stark Law liability (which is a strict liability statute), the absence of scienter may be relevant to CMS's settlement posture in an SRDP proceeding and to any parallel AKS analysis. Additionally, the Meridian arrangement provides legitimate clinical services to AHT patients, and the $185 per-scan fee itself may be supportable as consistent with fair market value on a per-unit basis — the structural deficiency relates to the per-scan (volume-based) method of determining compensation, not necessarily to the rate itself.
Aggravating factors. The DHS referral volume is significant ($2.8 million in FY2022 alone). The fee is directly and explicitly tied to scan volume, with no fixed component, no minimum, and no alternative fee structure. The arrangement has been in place for over two years. These factors collectively present a clear compliance failure that would be difficult to defend in the event of a government audit, qui tam action, or CMS investigation.
B. Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. — Preferred Laboratory Arrangement
1. Arrangement Summary
AHT and Pinnacle Laboratory Services Inc. ("Pinnacle") are parties to a Preferred Laboratory Agreement dated June 15, 2020 (the "Pinnacle Agreement"). Pinnacle's principal address is 1200 Warwick Avenue, Suite 110, Warwick, Rhode Island 02886, and its EIN is 05-6138290.
Under the Pinnacle Agreement, AHT clinics in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts designate Pinnacle as the preferred laboratory for outpatient laboratory testing services, subject to patient choice and payer network requirements. AHT physicians order laboratory tests through the ArborConnect electronic health records ("EHR") platform, and Pinnacle collects specimens, performs testing, and reports results. During fiscal year 2022, the DHS referral volume from AHT clinics to Pinnacle was approximately $1.65 million.
In connection with the Pinnacle Agreement, two categories of non-monetary remuneration are provided by Pinnacle to AHT:
No-Cost Electronic Laboratory Interface. Pinnacle has provided, at no cost to AHT, an electronic laboratory interface that is integrated into the ArborConnect EHR platform. This interface facilitates electronic test ordering, specimen tracking, and results reporting between AHT clinics and the Pinnacle laboratory. The estimated annual market value of this interface, based on comparable commercial licensing arrangements for laboratory information system interfaces, is approximately $120,000 per year. Pinnacle charges AHT $0 for this interface.
CME Sponsorship. During fiscal year 2022, Pinnacle sponsored four continuing medical education ("CME") events for AHT physicians, with an aggregate sponsorship value of approximately $86,000. These events included speaker fees, venue costs, catering, and printed materials.
In addition to the non-monetary remuneration issues, a separate ownership concern exists. Dr. Karen Ellsworth, the spouse of AHT's Chief Executive Officer Dr. Nathan Ellsworth, holds a 4.2% passive equity interest in Pinnacle. Dr. Karen Ellsworth is not employed by AHT and does not directly make referral decisions. However, as the spouse of AHT's CEO, she is an "immediate family member" of a physician who may influence referral decisions at AHT, which implicates the Stark Law's prohibition on referrals to entities in which a referring physician or immediate family member holds an ownership or investment interest.
2. Stark Law Analysis — Non-Monetary Remuneration
DHS Category Implicated. The DHS category implicated by the Pinnacle arrangement is "clinical laboratory services," as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(6) and the corresponding regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 411.351.
Referral and Financial Relationship. AHT-employed physicians refer patients to Pinnacle for outpatient laboratory services. Pinnacle furnishes DHS to patients referred by AHT physicians. The no-cost laboratory interface and the CME sponsorship constitute remuneration flowing from Pinnacle (the DHS entity) to AHT (the entity employing the referring physicians). This creates an indirect compensation arrangement under the Stark Law's framework, as there is an unbroken chain of financial relationships between the referring physicians (employed by AHT) and Pinnacle (the entity furnishing DHS), with the non-monetary remuneration constituting the compensation at the AHT-Pinnacle link in the chain.
Non-Monetary Compensation Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(k)). The non-monetary compensation exception permits non-monetary compensation from an entity to a physician (or an entity employing a physician) if the aggregate value of the non-monetary compensation does not exceed the annually adjusted threshold. For calendar year 2023, this threshold is $459. The no-cost laboratory interface alone, valued at approximately $120,000 per year, exceeds the $459 threshold by more than 260 times. The CME sponsorship, valued at approximately $86,000 in FY2022, similarly exceeds the threshold by approximately 187 times as a standalone item. The combined annual non-monetary remuneration of approximately $206,000 per year is, by any measure, orders of magnitude beyond the applicable threshold. The non-monetary compensation exception is therefore clearly and unambiguously unavailable for this arrangement.
Electronic Health Records Items Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(w)). The electronic health records items exception, which under certain conditions permitted donations of EHR-related items and services, was available through December 31, 2021, for most items and services. Even during the period when this exception was available, it imposed several conditions that are unlikely to have been satisfied in this case: the recipient was required to pay at least 15% of the donor's cost of the items and services (AHT paid $0); the items and services had to be necessary and used predominantly to create, maintain, transmit, or receive electronic health records; and the arrangement had to be set forth in a written agreement. Based on our review of the Pinnacle Agreement and the circumstances surrounding the laboratory interface provision, these conditions were not met. Moreover, the exception has been sunset for most items as of December 31, 2021, rendering it unavailable for the ongoing provision of the interface in 2022 and 2023.
Other Potential Exceptions. We have also considered whether the laboratory interface or CME sponsorship could qualify under any other Stark exception, including the fair market value exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)), the personal services arrangement exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(d)), or any of the compensation arrangement exceptions applicable to indirect compensation arrangements. None of these exceptions provides a viable path to compliance given the nature and magnitude of the remuneration involved.
3. Stark Law Analysis — Dr. Karen Ellsworth's Ownership Interest
Dr. Karen Ellsworth is the spouse of Dr. Nathan Ellsworth, AHT's Chief Executive Officer. As a spouse, Dr. Karen Ellsworth is an "immediate family member" of Dr. Nathan Ellsworth as that term is defined in the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(2) and 42 C.F.R. § 411.351). Dr. Nathan Ellsworth is a physician who, in his capacity as CEO of AHT, may make or influence referral decisions, including decisions regarding the designation of preferred laboratory providers and the routing of laboratory test orders.
Dr. Karen Ellsworth's 4.2% passive equity interest in Pinnacle constitutes an "ownership or investment interest" under the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(2)(A)). The Stark Law prohibits a physician from making referrals for DHS to an entity in which the physician or an immediate family member holds an ownership or investment interest, unless an applicable exception is satisfied.
The exceptions potentially applicable to ownership interests in entities providing DHS are narrow:
Publicly Traded Securities (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(a)). This exception applies to ownership of investment securities that may be purchased on terms generally available to the public and that are listed on a national exchange or traded under an automated interdealer quotation system. Pinnacle is a privately held company and its equity interests are not publicly traded. This exception is inapplicable.
Mutual Funds (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(b)). This exception applies to ownership interests in mutual funds. Dr. Ellsworth's interest is a direct equity interest in Pinnacle, not a mutual fund investment. This exception is inapplicable.
Rural Provider Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.356(c)). This exception provides a limited carve-out for ownership interests in entities located in rural areas as defined by CMS. Pinnacle is located in Warwick, Rhode Island, and AHT's Rhode Island clinics that refer to Pinnacle are similarly located in non-rural areas. This exception is inapplicable.
No other ownership interest exception appears applicable. Therefore, to the extent that referrals from AHT to Pinnacle are attributable to or influenced by Dr. Nathan Ellsworth — whether through his direct ordering of tests, his designation of Pinnacle as a preferred laboratory, his oversight of referral protocols, or his general managerial authority over AHT's clinical operations — such referrals may constitute prohibited referrals under the Stark Law by virtue of his spouse's ownership interest in Pinnacle.
4. Estimated Overpayment Exposure
The relevant period for overpayment exposure analysis extends from June 15, 2020 (the effective date of the Pinnacle Agreement) through the date on which the non-compliant elements of the arrangement are remediated. The estimated DHS referral volumes from AHT physicians to Pinnacle during the relevant period are as follows:
Applying AHT's 61% Medicare/Medicaid payer mix yields an estimated $2.97 million in federal health care program payments at risk over the relevant period.
However, the overpayment analysis for the Pinnacle arrangement is complicated by several factors. First, the question of severability: if the underlying laboratory referral relationship between AHT and Pinnacle could, in the absence of the non-compliant remuneration (the no-cost lab interface and CME sponsorship), satisfy an alternative Stark exception — such as the personal services arrangement exception or the fair market value exception for the laboratory services agreement itself — then only the period during which the non-compliant remuneration tainted the arrangement would be relevant, and the analysis would focus on the remuneration rather than the entire DHS volume. In practice, however, the non-monetary remuneration has been continuous since the inception of the Pinnacle Agreement, so the tainted period effectively covers the entire arrangement.
Second, the ownership interest issue involving Dr. Karen Ellsworth independently taints the arrangement for any referrals that are attributable to or directed by Dr. Nathan Ellsworth. Quantifying the proportion of AHT's Pinnacle referrals that are attributable to Dr. Nathan Ellsworth's influence presents an additional analytical challenge. As CEO, Dr. Ellsworth exercises general supervisory authority over AHT's clinical operations and may have been involved in the decision to designate Pinnacle as a preferred laboratory, but he may not personally order laboratory tests for individual patients. The proportion of referrals tainted by the ownership interest could range from a small fraction (if limited to tests personally ordered by Dr. Ellsworth) to the entirety (if CMS takes the position that his managerial influence over AHT's laboratory referral patterns taints all referrals to Pinnacle).
5. Risk Assessment
Risk Level: HIGH
The Pinnacle arrangement presents two independent and compounding Stark Law concerns, either of which standing alone would warrant a high-risk classification.
Mitigating factors. Dr. Karen Ellsworth's ownership interest is passive (4.2%) and relatively modest. Dr. Nathan Ellsworth serves in an administrative/executive capacity (CEO) and may not personally make referral decisions for individual patients. The laboratory interface provides legitimate operational value to AHT's clinical operations by facilitating electronic test ordering and results reporting. The CME sponsorship events may have provided genuine educational value to AHT physicians.
Aggravating factors. The arrangement has been in place since June 2020, a period of approximately three years, during which the non-compliant elements have been continuously operative. The combined non-monetary remuneration ($206,000 per year) is substantial in absolute terms and dramatically exceeds the applicable Stark threshold ($459 per year). The annual DHS referral volume ($1.65 million in FY2022) is significant. The ownership interest held by the CEO's spouse was not disclosed to or tracked by AHT's compliance program, suggesting a gap in the organization's conflict-of-interest identification and monitoring processes. The convergence of the non-monetary remuneration and ownership interest issues at the same DHS entity creates a compounded compliance risk that may attract heightened scrutiny from CMS in any review or disclosure context.
C. Medical Director Compensation Arrangements
1. Arrangement Summary
AHT maintains 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements with physicians who provide medical directorship and clinical oversight services across AHT's 23 outpatient clinic locations and ancillary service lines. These physicians provide a range of services, including clinical oversight, quality assurance, peer review, policy development, staff supervision, credentialing support, and regulatory compliance activities.
Annual stipends across the 38 arrangements range from $25,000 to $110,000, with aggregate annual compensation across all 38 arrangements totaling approximately $1.92 million. The mean documented hours of service per month across all arrangements is 8.4 hours. Based on these figures, the effective average hourly rate across all 38 arrangements is approximately $501.28 per hour, calculated as follows:
$1,920,000 ÷ (38 physicians × 8.4 hours/month × 12 months) = $1,920,000 ÷ 3,830.4 hours = $501.28/hour
This effective average hourly rate has been flagged as above the 90th percentile for multiple physician specialties based on industry benchmark data from MGMA (Medical Group Management Association) and SullivanCotter. While individual arrangements vary significantly — a physician receiving a $25,000 annual stipend for 8.4 hours per month would have an effective hourly rate of approximately $248 per hour, while a physician receiving $110,000 for the same hours would have an effective rate of approximately $1,091 per hour — the aggregate data suggests a systemic pattern of above-market compensation for medical directorship services.
In recognition of this concern, AHT retained Northbridge Valuation Advisors LLC ("Northbridge") in February 2023 to prepare independent FMV opinions for all 52 physician compensation arrangements within AHT's portfolio, including the 38 independent contractor/medical director arrangements and 14 Lakeview legacy employment agreements. Northbridge's engagement is led by Sandra Kilpatrick, ASA, CVA, and the opinions are expected to address fair market value, commercial reasonableness, and the volume/value nexus for each arrangement. At the time of this memorandum, Northbridge has not yet delivered its final opinions, and the analysis below is therefore based on preliminary benchmark data and the aggregate metrics described above.
2. Stark Law Analysis
All 38 medical directors are physicians who are in a position to make or influence referrals to AHT for DHS, including clinical laboratory services, radiology and imaging services, and physical therapy services — all of which are provided at AHT's 23 outpatient clinic locations. The compensation paid by AHT to these physicians constitutes a direct compensation arrangement under the Stark Law (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(a)), as AHT pays compensation directly to each physician without any intervening entity.
The Stark Law exceptions most directly applicable to medical director compensation arrangements are:
Personal Services Arrangement Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(d)). This exception requires, among other conditions, that: (a) the arrangement be set out in writing, signed by the parties, and specify the services covered by the arrangement; (b) the arrangement cover all of the services to be furnished by the physician (or be for identifiable services and be for a term of at least one year); (c) the aggregate compensation over the term of the arrangement be set in advance, not exceed fair market value, and not be determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated between the parties; and (d) the services to be furnished under the arrangement not involve the counseling or promotion of a business arrangement or other activity that violates federal or state law.
Fair Market Value Exception (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(l)). This exception requires that: (a) the arrangement be in writing, signed by the parties, and specify the services covered; (b) the arrangement cover only identifiable items or services, and the compensation for each item or service be separately specified; (c) the compensation be set in advance, consistent with fair market value, and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the referring physician; and (d) the arrangement be commercially reasonable.
Both exceptions share the critical requirement that compensation be consistent with fair market value and not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals. The effective average hourly rate of $501.28 — which exceeds the 90th percentile of physician specialty benchmarks — raises a strong inference that compensation exceeds FMV for some or all of these arrangements. If compensation exceeds FMV, neither the personal services arrangement exception nor the fair market value exception is available, and referrals by these physicians to AHT for DHS would be prohibited under the Stark Law.
Additionally, our preliminary review of the medical director agreements has identified several additional deficiencies that may independently undermine the availability of the applicable exceptions. Specifically, several agreements lack adequate documentation of specific duties and responsibilities, time commitment requirements, and expected deliverables. The absence of such documentation undermines the "commercially reasonable" requirement — a medical director arrangement is commercially reasonable only if it is reasonable in the absence of referrals, meaning that a reasonable business person would enter into the arrangement to obtain the specified services at the specified compensation, irrespective of any referrals generated. Without clear documentation of the services to be provided, the hours required, and the deliverables expected, it is difficult to demonstrate that the arrangement is commercially reasonable. Moreover, some agreements may lack the one-year minimum term required by the personal services arrangement exception, or may have expired and been operating on a holdover basis beyond the timeframes permitted under the Stark Law Modernization Final Rule.
3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure
The total DHS volume attributable to referrals by the 38 medical directors is substantial but requires detailed analysis of referral patterns for each individual physician. AHT's 23 clinics provide clinical laboratory services, radiology and imaging services, and physical therapy services — all of which are DHS categories — and the medical directors are generally in a position to refer patients for these services.
A precise quantification of the DHS referral volume attributable to each medical director requires extraction and analysis of referral data from AHT's billing systems, cross-referenced with claims data for each physician NPI. This analysis is currently underway and is expected to be completed in conjunction with the Northbridge FMV opinion deliverables.
As a conservative preliminary estimate, if each of the 38 medical directors refers even a modest volume of DHS to AHT facilities, the aggregate Medicare/Medicaid payments associated with those referrals could be substantial. Based on discussions with AHT's revenue cycle team and a review of aggregate DHS volumes at AHT's clinic locations, we estimate that the annual volume of potentially tainted DHS referrals attributable to the 38 medical directors falls in the range of approximately $3 million to $8 million per year, depending on the referral patterns and clinical activity levels of each individual physician. This range must be multiplied by the relevant non-compliant period for each arrangement, which varies by individual agreement inception date.
We emphasize that not all 38 arrangements necessarily fail the FMV requirement. The $501.28 effective average hourly rate is an aggregate figure that masks significant variation among individual arrangements. Some arrangements at the lower end of the stipend range — for example, a physician receiving $25,000 per year for 8.4 hours per month of documented service (an effective rate of approximately $248 per hour) — may well fall within the FMV range for the applicable specialty and geographic market. Others, particularly those at the upper end of the stipend range or those with particularly limited documented hours, are more likely to exceed FMV. The Northbridge FMV opinions will identify which specific arrangements are above FMV and by how much, allowing for a more precise quantification of the actual overpayment exposure.
The maximum exposure period for each individual arrangement varies by its inception date. Some agreements predate AHT's establishment and have been in effect for several years, while others were assumed in the Lakeview acquisition and have been in effect since August 15, 2022. The exposure calculation will need to be performed on an arrangement-by-arrangement basis once the Northbridge opinions are received.
4. Risk Assessment
Risk Level: HIGH (aggregate) / MODERATE to HIGH (individual arrangements)
The effective average hourly rate of $501.28 above the 90th percentile is a significant red flag that, in the aggregate, suggests a systemic compensation issue across AHT's medical director arrangements. The number of potentially non-compliant arrangements (38) and the aggregate annual compensation ($1.92 million) compound the risk. The systemic nature of the issue suggests a programmatic compliance failure rather than an isolated incident — a characterization that could attract heightened regulatory scrutiny.
Mitigating factors. The above-FMV compensation may be attributable, at least in part, to inadequate documentation of hours actually worked rather than intentional overpayment. If medical directors are in fact providing more hours of service than the mean 8.4 hours per month reflected in the documentation, the effective hourly rate would be lower. The Northbridge FMV opinions will provide defensible benchmark values and, where possible, will assist in establishing commercially reasonable compensation ranges for each arrangement. Additionally, AHT is undertaking prompt remediation of these arrangements, which will be a significant mitigating factor in any enforcement context.
Aggravating factors. The number of potentially non-compliant arrangements is substantial (38 out of 38 IC/medical director arrangements). The effective average rate significantly exceeds industry benchmarks. The documentation deficiencies (missing duty descriptions, time requirements, and deliverables) suggest that AHT did not have adequate processes in place to ensure Stark compliance for medical director arrangements. The systemic nature of the issue — affecting the majority of AHT's medical director relationships — raises a more fundamental question about the adequacy of AHT's compliance infrastructure and physician compensation oversight.
D. Lakeview Legacy Arrangements
1. Overview. As part of its asset acquisition of Lakeview Medical Associates, P.C., which closed on August 15, 2022, AHT assumed a portfolio of physician agreements and real estate leases previously maintained by Lakeview. This portfolio includes: 14 physician agreements (12 employment agreements and 2 independent contractor agreements); 3 medical director agreements with annual stipends of $45,000, $60,000, and $72,000, respectively; and 2 office leases at 75 Belmont Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, and 310 Main Street, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.
Prior to the acquisition, Lakeview generated annual revenue of approximately $18.2 million, of which approximately $10.9 million (approximately 60%) was derived from Medicare and Medicaid programs. This payer mix is consistent with AHT's overall Medicare/Medicaid revenue share of approximately 61%.
The Grayson Whitaker gap assessment identified multiple compliance gaps in the Lakeview legacy arrangements, including: missing or absent FMV substantiation for physician compensation; expired agreement terms and holdover issues; non-compliant compensation formulas; and inadequate documentation of duties, hours, and deliverables for medical director stipend arrangements.
A key personnel transition associated with the acquisition was the appointment of Dr. Vivian Chao, formerly the managing partner of Lakeview, to the position of AHT Regional Medical Director for the Central Massachusetts region. Dr. Chao's compensation and duties under her new AHT arrangement are included in the Northbridge FMV opinion engagement.
2. Stark Law Analysis
The physician employment agreements assumed from Lakeview are analyzed primarily under the employment exception to the Stark Law (42 C.F.R. § 411.357(c)). The employment exception requires that: (a) the employment is for identifiable services; (b) the amount of remuneration is consistent with fair market value for the services; (c) the remuneration is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals by the referring physician (with an exception for productivity bonuses based on personally performed services); (d) the remuneration is provided pursuant to an arrangement that would be commercially reasonable even if no referrals were made; and (e) the arrangement otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.
A significant concern relates to the holdover provisions applicable to arrangements that expired but continued in effect without formal renewal. The 2021 Stark Law Modernization Final Rule (85 Fed. Reg. 77492, effective January 19, 2021) updated the holdover provisions at 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(a)(7) (for space rentals), 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(b)(6) (for equipment rentals), and other exceptions, generally permitting holdover for up to six months following the expiration of an agreement that previously satisfied all applicable exception requirements. Several Lakeview agreements appear to have been operating on a holdover basis for periods extending beyond the six-month holdover window permitted under the Modernization Final Rule, creating a potential gap period during which no Stark exception may apply.
Additionally, the Lakeview arrangements lack independent FMV documentation. Westbrook Hale LLP (lead partner: Elena Marchetti), the law firm that represented AHT in the Lakeview acquisition, performed standard acquisition-related due diligence but did not obtain Stark-specific FMV opinions for the assumed physician compensation arrangements. This gap is significant because the employment exception requires compensation consistent with FMV, and in the absence of contemporaneous FMV substantiation, it is difficult to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
The three Lakeview medical director agreements, with stipends of $45,000, $60,000, and $72,000, require FMV assessment relative to the documented duties and hours of service. These assessments are included in the pending Northbridge engagement.
3. Estimated Overpayment Exposure
The relevant period for overpayment exposure with respect to the Lakeview legacy arrangements begins on August 15, 2022 (the closing date of the acquisition) and extends through the date of remediation. DHS generated by the 14 Lakeview physicians at AHT facilities constitutes a subset of AHT's total DHS volume and requires isolation of referrals attributable to these specific physicians.
Quantification of this exposure is difficult without complete referral data linked to the individual NPIs of the 14 Lakeview physicians. However, given that Lakeview's pre-acquisition Medicare/Medicaid revenue was approximately $10.9 million per year — a figure that necessarily includes DHS furnished based on referrals by Lakeview physicians — the potential DHS volume at risk could be substantial. We note that not all of Lakeview's pre-acquisition revenue constituted DHS; the $10.9 million figure includes professional services revenue as well. Detailed claims-level analysis will be required to isolate the DHS component.
A significant mitigating factor for the Lakeview arrangements is that the holdover provisions under the Modernization Final Rule may protect some arrangements for a limited transitional period following the acquisition. Specifically, if a Lakeview agreement was in compliance with an applicable Stark exception immediately prior to its expiration, and the holdover period has not exceeded six months, the arrangement may benefit from the holdover safe harbor during that interim period. Given that the acquisition closed on August 15, 2022, any arrangements that expired prior to the acquisition and were operating on holdover would have exhausted the six-month holdover period by approximately February 15, 2023. Arrangements that were current at the time of acquisition but have since expired would need to be evaluated individually for holdover eligibility.
Risk Level: MODERATE — contingent on the results of the Northbridge FMV opinions and the timeline for completing remediation of the assumed arrangements. The shorter exposure period (post-August 15, 2022) and the potential availability of holdover protections reduce the risk relative to the Meridian and Pinnacle arrangements.
E. ConnectiCare MSA Arrangements — Indirect Compensation
1. Overview. AHT provides management services to nine independently owned physician practices in Strathmore Mutual Insurance, Connecticut metropolitan area through ConnectiCare Physicians Network, LLC ("CPN"), a management services organization based at 55 Asylum Street, 7th Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103. Under the management services agreements ("MSAs") between AHT and each managed practice, AHT provides administrative, billing, coding, human resources, information technology, compliance, and other management support services. AHT's management fee is calculated as 15% of collected net revenue for each managed practice.
In fiscal year 2022, the aggregate collected net revenue across the nine managed practices was approximately $31.53 million, generating management fee revenue to AHT of approximately $4.73 million. The managed practices refer patients to AHT-owned ancillary services, including clinical laboratory, diagnostic imaging, and physical therapy, all of which constitute DHS categories under the Stark Law.
2. Stark Law Analysis
The MSA arrangements require analysis under the Stark Law's indirect compensation arrangement framework (42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)). An indirect compensation arrangement exists when: (a) there is an unbroken chain of persons or entities between the

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts